Pergamon
00~-7967(94)01~43-3
Behar. Res. Ther. Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 223-227. 1995
Copyright :~i: 1995 ElsevierScience Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0005-7967/95 $9.50 + 0.00
PSYCHOMETRIC
CHARACTERISTICS
AND VALIDITY
THE DUTCH ADAPTATION
OF THE BUSS-DURKEE
HOSTILITY INVENTORY
(THE BDHI-D)
OF
ALFRED LANGE, I ANDREA PAHLICH, t MIGALDA SARUCCO, 2
GEORGE SMITS, 3 BAHMAN DEHGHANI 1 and GERRIT HANEWALD I
~Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2psychiatric Hospital Amsterdam (PZA), Postbus 50, 2080 AB Santpoort Zuid,
and 31nstitute for Training & Guidance, Smits & Beerends, Romelaan 12, 5237 EB Den Bosch,
The Netherlands
(Received 2 February 1994)
Summary--Data are presented on the factorial structure, internal consistency, and validity of the Dutch
adaptation of the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (the BDHI-D). Factor analyses of the responses of
463 subjects revealed two scales measuring Overt Aggression and Covert Aggression. The reliability of
both subscales is good. Concordance with other self-report measures reveals satisfactory convergent and
divergent validity.
INTRODUCTION
The Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI: Buss & Durkee, 1957) is one of the most popular
and frequently used self-report measures of aggression (Biaggio & Maiuro, 1985). With 242
citations in the Social Science Citation Index between 1960 and 1989, it is one of the most widely
used questionnaires of its kind (Bushman, Cooper & Lemke, 1991). The original questionnaire was
based on a behavioural conceptualization of aggression. Buss (1961) defined aggression as an action
which intentionally delivers an obnoxious stimulus to another organism. Tedeschi (1983) criticized
this definition as being overinclusive. He stated that "the behavioristic definition includes reponses
that would not usually be considered aggressive", p. 137). The solution is to exclude all 'harm
doing' that is culturally legitimized (such as pain induced by a dentist). In his original conceptualization, Buss (1961) made a major distinction between overt aggression and hostility, the latter
pertaining to an attitude with an implicit verbal response of negative feelings or ugly intentions.
The BDHI consisted of 66 statements with false-true response categories and was divided into seven
scales across these two main dimensions: Assault, Indirect Aggression, Irritability, Negativism,
Resentment, Suspicion, and Verbal Aggression. These scales were formed on the basis of face value
and not on factor analysis.
Buss and Perry (1992) recently added new items to the original BDHI items. After factor analysis
of the new pool of items, their scale consisted of 29 items divided into four scales: Physical
Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Anger and Hostility.
Since no Dutch instrument focused specifically on the measurement of aggression, Lischewsky
and De Ruiter (1989) took initial steps in adapting the BDHI to the Dutch population. They
translated the BDHI from English, and had it independently translated back to English. This
showed that the translated items closely resembled the meaning of the English items. The translated
statements were presented to 204 subjects with instructions to indicate for each statement whether
or not it applied to them. Their scores were subjected to a preliminary psychometric investigation
(item/rest correlations and exploratory factor analyses). The outcome of the factor analysis raised
doubt about the (seven) factor structure as proposed by the original authors. The results indicated
that a two-factor solution (overt and covert aggression) would be most suitable.
The present study was intended to establish the psychometric properties of this Dutch adaptation
of the BDHI (the BDHI-D) and at providing evidence of the construct validity of the BDHI-D
by exploring the association between the BDHI-D and relevant psychological symptoms and
223
224
Alfred Lange et aL
personality traits. It was expected that overt aggression would highly correlate with the aggression
subscales of the Dutch Interpersonal Relations Questionnaire (Vertommen & Rochette, 1979) and
the Dutch MMPI (Luteijn, Starren & Van Dijk, 1975). Moderate correlations were expected with
the subscales Dominance and Extroversion of the same instrument (Franks, 1960; Luteijn et al.,
1975). Negative correlations were expected between Social Desirability (the tendency to comply
with social norms and values) and overt aggression.
Covert aggression (with its inclination to inhibit aggressive behavior) was expected to correlate
highly with the dimensions of psychopathology, as measured by the SCL-90 (Derogatis, 1977), and
with bitterness (Vertommen & Rochette, 1979). No or low correlation was expected between covert
aggression on the one hand and Dominance, Extroversion and Social Desirability on the other
(Franks, 1960).
METHOD
Subjects
The BDHI-D was completed by 463 Ss (302 first year psychology students, 59 dentistry students,
59 bank employees, and 43 nursing students). Age varied from 18 to 52 years. The mean age was
23 years (SD = 6 years). There were 270 women and 189 men (4 Ss did not answer the gender
question).
Measures
In order to investigate the construct validity of the BDHI-D, the nursing students (n -- 43) also
completed the following scales:
(a) The Symptom Checklist (Arrindell & Ettema, 1986; Derogatis, 1977).
(b) The Hostility and Bitterness scales of the Interpersonal Relations Questionnaire (a Dutch
questionnaire by Vertommen & Rochette, 1979).
(c) The Negativism and Extroversion scales of the Dutch Shortened M M P I (Luteijn, Kok & Van
der Ploeg, 1980).
(d) The Dominance scale, of the Dutch Personality Questionnaire (Luteijn et al., 1975).
(e) Social Desirability, a Dutch version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
(Hermans, 1967; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).
RESULTS
Factor analyses and internal consistency
It was decided to carry out an exploratory factor analysis. A principal component analysis with
varimax rotation was applied. The eigenvalues, the screen plot and the factor loadings were
inspected to reach the most appropriate factor solution (Crocker & Algina, 1986). In concordance
with the findings of Lischewsky and De Ruiter (1989), the best choice appeared to be a two-factor
solution. The two-factor solution accounted for 36.3% of the variance. Although this seems
somewhat modest, one should bear in mind that the dichotomous character of the items of the
BDHI-D puts limits to their intercorrelations.
Inspection of Table 1 shows that the scales can be interpreted as measures of Overt Aggression
(16 items indicating the tendency to express verbal and physical aggression) and Covert Aggression
(19 items comprising hostility, irritability, suspicion and anger, as an indicator of covert aggressive
tendencies). The former reflects the behavioural or motor component of aggression, while the latter
refers to the emotional and cognitive component of aggression.
The correlation between the factors was r =0.17, thus denoting acceptable independence.
Internal consistency was ~ = 0.77 for Overt Aggression and ~ = 0.79 for Covert Aggression. To
investigate whether the factor solution was similar for both genders, the factor analysis was
repeated for men and women separately. Results were sufficiently similar for both factor solutions:
Tucker's ~b's (Ten Berge, 1977) were q9 = 0.89 and ~b = 0.83 for Overt Aggression and Covert
Aggression respectively. The off-diagonal coefficients (indicating similarity for non corresponding
Psychometric characteristics of the Dutch adaptation of the BDHI-D
225
Table I. The items and their factor Ioadings
Items
Factor Ioadings
Covert Aggression
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
I 1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Factor I
0.50
0.43
0.34
0.47
0.48
0.33
0.55
0.40
0.39
0.35
0.47
0.54
0.39
0.59
0.41
0.47
0.37
0.33
0.45
I don't seem to get what's coming to me
[ know that people tend to talk about me behind my back
Sometimes people bother me just by being around
Other people always seem to get the breaks
I am irritated a great deal more than people are aware of
There are a number of people who seem to dislike me very much
When I look back on what's happened to me, I can't help feeling mildly resentful
It makes my blood boil to have somebody make fun o f me
I sometimes have the feeling that others are laughing at me
I sometimes pout when I don't get my way
l often feel like a powder keg ready to explode
Although I don't show it, I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy
I sometimes carry a chip on my shoulder
If I let people see the way I feel, I'd be considered a hard person to get along with
1 c o m m o n l y wonder what hidden reason another person m a y have for doing something nice for me
At times I feel I get a raw deal out of life
I used to think that most people are trying to anger or insult me
I don't let a lot of unimportant things irritate me*
Lately, l have been kind of grouchy
Factor 2
- 0.19
- 0.18
0.12
0.20
- 0.13
0.04
- 0.15
- 0.03
- 0.07
0.18
0.07
0.04
0.19
- 0.04
- 0.13
0.01
- 0.02
0.09
0.08
Overt Aggression
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
I 1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
I seldom strike back, even if someone hits me first*
I loose my temper easily but get over it quickly
I never get m a d enough to throw things*
I can think of no good reason for ever hitting anyone*
If somebody hits me first, I let him have it
When I am mad, I sometimes slam the doors
1 am always patient with others*
Even when my anger is aroused, I don't use 'strong language'*
When people yell at me, I yell back
When I really lose my temper, I a m capable of slapping someone
Since the age of ten, I have never had a temper tantrum*
When I get mad, I say nasty things
I can remember being so angry that I picked up the nearest thing and broke it
If I have to resort to physical violence to defend my rights, I will
I have known people who pushed me so far that we came to blows
I sometimes show my anger by banging on the table
- 0.04
0.18
0.13
- 0.15
0.07
0.17
0.01
- 0.08
0.23
0.22
0.04
0.24
0.24
0.07
0.08
0.21
0.55
0.35
0.46
0.43
0.50
0.44
0.48
0.50
0.35
0.51
0.38
0.34
0.42
0.38
0,42
0.36
*The scoring of these items is reversed.
factors) were ~b = 0.35 and q5 = 0.25 respectively. Thus, the factor structure replicates well across
gender.
Correlation of BDHI-D and personality measures
Table 2 shows the correlations of the BDHI-D with measures of psychological symptoms and
personality traits.
(a) As expected, Covert Aggression correlated significantly with the following subscales of the
Symptom Checklist (ArrindeU & Ettema, 1986): agoraphobic avoidance, somatization, anxiety,
hostility, depression, insufficiency, sensitivity, and general neuroticism. Also as expected, no
association was found between Overt Aggression and indices of neuroticism.
Table 2. Correlations of the B D H I - D scales with other factors (n = 38)
Covert Aggression
(19 items)
Anxiety (SCL-90)
Agoraphobia (SCL-90)
Depression (SCL-90)
Somatization (SCL-90)
Insufficiency (SCL-90)
Sensitivity (SCL-90)
Hostility (SCL-90)
Sleeplessness (SCL-90)
Psychoneuroticism (SCL-90)
Hostility (VIR)
Bitterness (VI R)
Negativism ( M M P I )
Extroversion ( M M P I )
Dominance (NPV)
Social desirability
*P < 0.01; **P < 0.001.
0.58**
0.45*
0.52"*
0.38*
0.56**
0.55**
0.47*
0.34
0.64**
0.24
0.54**
0.29
- 0.12
- 0.21
- 0.37
Overt Aggression
(16 items)
- 0.07
- 0.21
0.15
- 0.06
- 0.10
- 0.30
0.10
- 0.05
- 0.07
0.64**
0.24
0.54**
0.01
- 0.08
- 0.44*
Total score
(35 items)
0.32
0.13
0.43*
0.20
0.29
0.13
0.37
0.18
0.36
0.60**
0.51 **
0.57**
- 0.07
- 0.19
- 0.55**
226
Alfred Lange et al.
(b) As expected, significant correlations were found between the BDHI-D scales and the scales
of the Interpersonal Relations Questionnaire (Vertommen & Rochette, 1979). Overt Aggression
correlated significantly with Hostility (P < 0.001) and Covert Aggression was significantly related
to Bitterness (P < 0.001).
(c) As expected, the Negativism scale of the Dutch MMPI (Luteijn et al., 1980) was highly
correlated to Overt Aggression (P < 0.001) while Extroversion was not correlated to Overt
Aggression and its correlation with Covert Aggression was negative but not significant.
(d) As expected, the correlations of the Dominance scale of the Dutch Personality Questionnaire
(Luteijn et al., 1975) with both of the BDHI-D scales were low and were not significant.
(e) As expected, significant negative correlations were found between the Dutch Social Desirability scale (Hermans, 1967) and Overt Aggression (P < 0.01) and also with the Total Aggression score
(P < 0.001).
Sex differences
By means of t-tests the scores of female respondents were compared to those of male
respondents. On Covert Aggression, women scored significantly higher than men (tt442)= -2.55;
P = 0.01).* Contrary to our expectations we did not find significant differences between men and
women on Overt Aggression.
DISCUSSION
The original BDHI consisted of 66 items and its subscales were not formed on the basis of factor
analyses. In the present Dutch adaptation, the number of items was considerably reduced after item
analyses and factor analyses, resulting in two scales with high validity. Our findings are in complete
agreement with the studies cited by Ramanaiah, Conn and Schill (1987), in which factor analyses
of the BDHI have consistently yielded two major factors (Overt Hostility and Covert Hostility),
and with a meta-analysis by Bushman et al. (1991) of 21 factor-analytical studies of the original
BDHI, which showed that the seven original BDHI-scales measured two dimensions: overt and
covert aggression. Our scales are also comparable to those of Buss and Perry (1992). The Overt
Aggression scale is a combination of their Physical Aggression scale and Verbal Aggression scale,
which were strongly interrelated in their study. Anger and Hostility which correlated highly in the
Buss and Perry study, are also found in our Covert Aggression scale.
Taken together, the general pattern of correlations is consistent with the theoretical expectations
and strongly supports the convergent and divergent validity of the BDHI-D scales and the total
score. The construct validity of the questionnaire appears to be high. However, further investigation of the validity is required, especially using measurement techniques other than self-report.
A first step has been taken, as described by Lange, Dehghani and De Beurs (1995) who used
discriminant analysis to compare BDHI-D scores with behavioural ratings of aggression. They
found that the BDHI-D could identify aggressive and non-aggressive adolescents with 96%
accuracy.
Acknowledgements--We are indebted to Dr Conor Dolan for his suggestions regarding the analyses of the data.
REFERENCES
Arrindell, W. A. & Ettema, J. H. M. (1986). Klachtenlijst (SCL-90) (Symptom Checklist). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets
& Zeitlinger B.V.
Biaggio, M. K., & Maiuro, R. D. (1985). Recent Advances in Anger Assessment. In: Speilberger, C. D. & Butcher, J. N.
(Eds) Advances in personality assessment, 5 (pp. 71-101). Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bushman, B. J., Cooper, H. M. & Lemke, K. M. (1991). Meta-analysis of Factor Analyses: An illustration using the
Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 344-349.
Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.
Buss, A. H. & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
21, 343-349.
Buss, A. H. & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.
Crocker, L. M. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: CBS College Publishing.
*The data of ! 5 persons were omitted because of missing values.
Psychometric characteristics of the Dutch adaptation of the BDHI-D
227
Crowne, D. P. & Marlowe, D. (1960). A scale of social desirability independent of pathology. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Derogatis, L. R. (1977). SCL-90. Administration, Scoring and Procedures Manual-i for the R(evised) Version. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Franks, C. M. (1960). Conditioning and abnormal behaviour. In: Eysenck, H. J. (Ed.), Handbook of abnormal psychology.
London: Pitman Medical Publishing.
Hermans, H. (1967). Sociale Wenselijkheids Schaal, S W (Social Desirability Scale). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Catholic
University of Nijmegen.
Lange, A., Dehghani, B. & De Bcurs, E. (1995). Validation of the Dutch adaptation of the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory.
Behaviour Research and Therapy 33, 229-233.
Lischewski, C. & De Ruiter, J. D. (1989). De Buss-Durkee Vragenlijst; structuur, betrouwbaarheid en validiteit van de
Nederlandse vertaling van de Buss-Durkee Hostifity Inventory (The structure and reliability of the Dutch Buss-Durkee
Hostility Inventory). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam.
Luteijn, F., Starren, J. & Van Dijk, H. (1975). Nederlandse Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst, Handleiding (The Dutch Personality
Inventory). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.
Luteijn, F., Kok, A. R. & Van der Ploeg, F. A. E. (1980). NVM, Nederlandse Verkorte MMPI, Handleiding (The Dutch
shortened MMPI). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.
Ramanaiah, N. V., Conn, S. R. & Schill, T. (1987). On the content saturation of the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory scales.
Psychological Reports, 61, 591-594.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1983). Social influence theory and aggression. In: Geen, R. G. & Donnerstein, E. I. (Eds), Aggression:
Theoretical and empirical reviews (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.
Ten Berge, J. M. F. (1977). Optimizing factorial invariance. Groningen, The Netherlands: VRB drukkerijen.
Vertommen, H., & Rochette, F. (1979). Handleiding Vragenlijst lnterpersoonlijke Relaties. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets
& Zeitlinger B.V.